CreateDebate


Debate Info

73
79
Yes, I agree. No, I reject the resolution.
Debate Score:152
Arguments:139
Total Votes:165
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes, I agree. (68)
 
 No, I reject the resolution. (61)

Debate Creator

vegan(77) pic



Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.

Dairy, eggs and meat should be banned worldwide.

Yes, I agree.

Side Score: 73
VS.

No, I reject the resolution.

Side Score: 79
2 points

Outline

I. Intro

II. Animal sentience

III. Suffering

IV. Health

V. Environment

VI. World Hunger

VII. Summary

VIII. Links

I. Intro

Hi, I'm new here, so if I perform an unintelligent deed let me know. Vegan is the best choice. Vegan avoids animal cruelty, has many health benefits, saves the environment, and mitigates world hunger.

II. Animal sentience

Animals are sentient beings. "Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates.""[1].

"A Universal Declaration on Animal Sentience: Animal sentience is a well-established fact " [2].

Since animals are sentient it is immoral to cause them suffering. Therefore, non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.

III. Suffering

Animals surely suffer. Free-range farming is not cruelty free. Egg-production and milk production are extremely cruel. ""Free-Range" Hen

• Debeaked with a hot bloody blade at one day old with no anesthetic.

• Force molted (intentionally starved to shock the body into another laying cycle).

• Violently packed into a semi and trucked hundreds of miles to an agonizing slaughter when considered “spent” (unable to keep laying eggs at a fast enough pace).

• Denied the opportunity to live a natural life in truly humane care.

• All of her brothers (roosters) are brutally killed as baby chicks simply because they can’t lay eggs." [3].

"After just 4 to 6 years, dairy cows are “spent” from being forced to continuously produce milk. Often weak and ill, they endure transport to auction and slaughter, both of which are traumatic for these gentle animals. If allowed to exist free of exploitation and slaughter, cows can live 25 years or more.

" [4].

Humans have not found a way to reliable kill each other yet, and human life is considered more valuable by many. "Lethal injection can cause excruciating pain. Since the first lethal injection on December 7, 1982, over 1,000 prisoners in the USA have been executed by this method and it has all but replaced other methods of execution."[5].

IV. Health

Plant foods contain antioxidants, fiber, and phytonutrients. Animal products have too much fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein. Animal protein is detrimental to human healthy because of the increase in IGF-1, insulin like growth factor one. IGF-1 increase risk for cancer.

"For years we didn’t know why eating a plant-based diet appeared to so dramatically improve cancer defenses within just a matter of weeks. But researchers recently figured it out: eating healthy lowers the level of the cancer promoting growth hormone IGF-1. This saga was detailed in my last four blog posts:" [10].

V. Environment

"Many fishing practices are extremely destructive to delicate habitats - particularly vital fish breeding grounds like coral reefs and seagrass meadows." [6].

"The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector. " [7].

VI. World Hunger

Animal products are less efficient. The extra food freed from these inefficient foods could fed hungry humans.

"Meat is less efficient because we eat the animal that eats the grain instead of eating the grain ourselves. It takes about 15 pounds of feed to make 1 pound of beef, 6 pounds of feed for 1 pound of pork and 5 pounds of feed for 1 pound of chicken, the Department of Agriculture estimates. For catfish, it's about 2 pounds of feed per pound of fish." [8].

"The environmental comparison of cheese varieties made from cow milk and directly from lupine and the evaluation of energy inputs in fish protein and vegetable protein also suggest an environmental advantage for vegetarian food. " [9].

VII. Summary

In summary, there is no valid reason to continue to eat animal products. Consuming vegan foods cause less animal suffering, are healthier, save the environment, and help mitigate world hunger. Non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide.

VIII. Links

1. http://www.livescience.com/39481-time-to-declare-animal-sentience.html

2. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201306/universal-declaration-animal-sentience-no-pretending

3. http://peacefulprairie.org/freerange1.html

4. http://www.humanemyth.org/happycows.htm

5. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/lethal-injection

6. http://wwf.panda.org/aboutourearth/blueplanet/problems/problemsfishing/destructivefishing/

7. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ en/publications/reports/slaughtering-the-amazon/

8. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-04-21-carbon-diet N.htm

9. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/664S.full

10. http://nutritionfacts.org/2013/02/14/animal-protein-and-igf-1/

Side: Yes, I agree.
foratag(257) Disputed
2 points

Exactly how does eliminating non vegan food mitigate world hunger? I am confused. Seems to me the profligacy of many food sources would be the deciding factor.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
arteaga34(130) Disputed
0 points

I think what he meant was that if there was a ban on non-vegan foods, and farmers continued to harvest the same amount of crops and food that they did to feed their harvested animals, we would be more then capable of putting an end to world hunger. This idea may not be entirely practical but that is just one of the many points for veganism.

Side: Yes, I agree.
Jace(4706) Disputed
2 points

Animal Sentience

Your references frequently conflate emotional process with conscious awareness of emotional process. That an animal experiences and responds to emotions does not mean they are aware doing so, and that awareness is a critical component to sentience. If we adopt the looser standard you introduce through your reference, then we must also conclude upon available evidence that plants are also sentient. [1] [2] [3] Certainly, then, veganism is no better. And what are we meant to eat?

Moreover, if it is wrong to kill and consume a thing because it suffers then would it not follow that the lion is immoral when it hunts? It seems absurd to suggest that it could be wrong for a lion to be carnivorous, because that is its nature. Yet by your reasoning we must. I suggest instead that suffering and predation are both part of nature, and that they are also necessary to nature. If it is in our nature to eat meat, as is certainly suggested by our physiology and archaeological evidence, then why should it be wrong to be as nature made us? Certainly, it can be no more wrong than the lion?

Suffering

This is an argument for better husbandry, not against husbandry altogether.

It is also subject to the same objections I raised against animal sentience.

Health

Your observations hold true for unbalanced consumption of red meat only, not for all animals. Your reference is a personal blog lacing citation to actual research.

Environment

Again, this is argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether. Even if we could not raise fish and cattle sustainably this does not mean we could not do so with other animals, particularly insects a number of which also consume human waste.

World Hunger

Again, this is an argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether. The criticism is of current animal based models, not against animal based models categorically. Cattle are inefficient. Insects are not.

Unacknowledged Harms

Banning all non-vegan foods would seriously destabilize the global economy, which is necessary for developing a sustainable vegan infrastructure. You would also incur the anger and wrath of the majority of the human population, polarizing them against your cause rather than inspiring them to favor it. There is also no global mechanism for imposing such a ban upon everyone, and doing so would therefore necessitate some use of force against the sovereignty of nations which would destabilize the entire geo-political system leading to conflict, death, famine, etc. It is imply impractical and counterproductive to ban non-vegan foods.

P.S. Instead of pasting links, which is what is causing everything to underline afterwards on the thread, use the hyperlink coding - [hyperlink text] (url), without the space between the two bracketed bits - which will turn whatever text you enter into a hyperlink.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
0 points

Jace,

You must certainly be aware that plants and animals are quite different. Even if plants have some level of intelligence, it must be vastly different from those of animals.

"“The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”" [1].

That is what makes animals and plants distinct in a relevant way. Plants cannot suffer, yet animals can. Think of a pig compared to a sunflower plant.

Even if scientists suddenly discovered plants were sentient, it takes less grain to feed a person on grain alone, as compared to animals. As seen in my previous post.

"Moreover, if it is wrong to kill and consume a thing because it suffers then would it not follow that the lion is immoral when it hunts? It seems absurd to suggest that it could be wrong for a lion to be carnivorous, because that is its nature." Jace

A wild animal killing prey is fine. No morals are broken.

"I suggest instead that suffering and predation are both part of nature, and that they are also necessary to nature. " Jace

Your analogy is flawed. A wild lion killing prey is a swift and merciful compared to what factory farmed animals must endure. Ever see a feral house cat chase down a wild animal? The feral cat does not toy with its prey. Instead, the prey is devoured almost instantly.

" If it is in our nature to eat meat, as is certainly suggested by our physiology and archaeological evidence, then why should it be wrong to be as nature made us? Certainly, it can be no more wrong than the lion?" Jace

Humans are omnivores, in the sense that we can eat meat and non-meats. From a Darwin survival of the fittest point of view, it was to human advantage to eat meat over starvation. Yet, in modern times starvation is relatively rare. Especially in first world countries.

As for physiological evidence humans stomach ph, small intestine length, and saliva suggest herbivore. [2].

"then why should it be wrong to be as nature made us?" Jace

Evolution has not prepared humans to eat mass amounts of factory farmed meat. Even if evolution did prepare us, it would be immoral. Obligate carnivores with supplements can thrive on a vegan diet.

"Suffering

This is an argument for better husbandry, not against husbandry altogether." Jace

Humans have abused animals long enough. Humans have proven they cannot be trusted to be kind to livestock. If more humane methods are developed, the profit motive will constantly tempt humans to put profit above animal welfare. Chickens are capable of feeling empathy. Chickens sense each others' pain.

"Health

Your observations hold true for unbalanced consumption of red meat only, not for all animals. Your reference is a personal blog lacing citation to actual research."

Michael Greger M.D. is a medical doctor who links to peer reviewed scholarly journals. You will notice this if you watch his videos.

"Again, this is argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether." Jace

Do you understand trophic levels? That animal meat will never be as efficient as vegan foods.

"particularly insects a number of which also consume human waste." Jace

Insects, this is a new retort. This is a strange answer. Do you really think humans would start eating insects en masse?

"World Hunger

Again, this is an argument for better husbandry and not against husbandry altogether. The criticism is of current animal based models, not against animal based models categorically. Cattle are inefficient. Insects are not." Jace

Again, you argue for insects. Yet, offer no proof that insects are healthy and that people will be willing to eat enough of them to make a difference. Over a million people eat vegan already.

"Unacknowledged Harms

Banning all non-vegan foods would seriously destabilize the global economy, which is necessary for developing a sustainable vegan infrastructure." Jace

Lots of products and traditions have been banned in the past. Human sacrifices, slavery, DDT, and incandescent light bulbs. The change doesn't have to be overnight. Instead, non-vegan foods could be phased out slowly like incandescent light bulbs. Ten to fifty years to change over seems reasonable.

Links

Note links might not come out right.

1

2

Side: Yes, I agree.
1 point

You still didn't address my question about if you agreed with hunting or not? Which is it?

Side: Yes, I agree.
vegan(77) Disputed
1 point

While off topic, I will declare that I disagree with humans hunting animals for sport.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
foratag(257) Clarified
1 point

Are you purposely avoiding the question. On the right side you said you disagree with the killing of animals, so then you must be opposed to killing deer for any reason. If so, then the consequences to the environment are huge, as the article I linked pointed out. Then can I deduce that you are in favor of letting millions of deer starve to death AND wreck havoc on the forests and farmers crops? That is incredibly cruel to allow millions of deer that horrendous ending.

However, you just stated that you are opposed to humans hunting for sport. It seems to me you are leaving yourself a way out in case you can't figure out a way to save the deer without killing them. Meaning, if necessary, you would approve of killing deer for humane reasons, but you didn't state that, now did you?

Side: Yes, I agree.
1 point

You can live without it. It is healthier and not linked to any form of cruelty. Compassion, unlimited.

Side: Yes, I agree.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

I would consider it cruelty to my taste buds.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
3 points

Ban dairy and meat?

Why?

Just because you're a vegan and want everybody to know it? You think it is hip and cool? LOL. So much so you even use it for your UserName on CB.

News Flash: we don't give a rat's ass.

I could care less if somebody is a vegan. And the vast majority of superbly physical fit athletes I've known have been Omnivores. Like me.

I am a life-long athlete and in excellent condition. A Proud Carnivore. (Not so proud I would use it as a UserName, though. LOL)

Well, really an omnivore since I eat veggies too. This is called a ell-balance diet, BTW. Something Veg-heads don't get.

Most vegans don't get enough protein. I have gone on vegetarian stints during my life, like for maybe a month at a time, a couple times a year. I've Done this for several years.

So I know what I am talking about when I tell you that personally I always felt weaker when I stopped eating meat completely. Oh, my cardio abilities and endurance might have gone up a couple ticks but I noticed by pure weight-room strength always waned.

Why?

As an Evolutionary Biologist I can telly you that us homo sapiens evolved eating meats, fruits and veggies. Our optimal diets include meat. Want proof? Look at our teeth. We have incisors used for tearing meat.

Pure herbivores don't have these.

NO documented study has ever show a vegan diet to be more healthful than one that includes lean meat in moderation.

So bottom line is...being a Veg Head is a personal choice. If it works for you fine. You're already on thin ice if you advocate it for others, but to propose non-vegan food should be banned is absurd. Ridiculous. Groundless.

It really belies your ignorance in he subject of nutrition and human biology.

Like I said....we evolved to be carnivorous..........

http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html

And...like I said, why we NEED to keep eating good lean meat.......

http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html

And like I said...you guys are pretty much a joke to us......

http://www.dumpaday.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/funny-vegan-jokes.jpg

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
Harvard(659) Disputed
2 points

Just because you're a vegan and want everybody to know it? You think it is hip and cool?

Perhaps you forgot about the disproportionate amount of 'gym-rats' who boast their physical accomplishments and plaster pictures of themselves on any social medium with an 'insert photo' option.

I could care less if somebody is a vegan. And the vast majority of superbly physical fit athletes I've known have been Omnivores. Like me.

How you managed to reconcile these two mutually exclusive statements is anyone's guess. Anyway, your knowledge on 'superbly physical fit athletes' is highly partial, unfounded, and just plain irrelevant.

I am a life-long athlete and in excellent condition. A Proud Carnivore.

Well, really an omnivore since I eat veggies too. This is called a ell-balance diet, BTW. Something Veg-heads don't get.

So why not delete the latter statement since you manifestly erred in your former one?

Most vegans don't get enough protein.

Again, unfounded. Vegans who diet improperly do not consume enough protein.

Further, is getting all that wonderful protein helping anything? 68.8% of Americans are overweight or obese; 35% are obese; and 74 percent of men are overweight... America ranks #2 in meat consumption, by the way. You should be concerned for your pseudo-carnivorous counterparts as Vegans do not suffer half of the health consequences that non-vegans do.

I have gone on vegetarian stints during my life, like for maybe a month at a time, a couple times a year. I've Done this for several years.

And you failed miserably (and comically) since you could not maintain 'weight-room strength' due to alleged protein deficiency - and you have the temerity to blame it on the vegan lifestyle, as opposed to laziness, despite the great amount of successful bodybuilding vegans who, apparently, bring out your frailty.

So I know what I am talking about when I tell you that personally I always felt weaker when I stopped eating meat completely.

Again you admit to your incompetence; some just don't have the cognitive resources to adjust to a different, more complex lifestyle.

As an Evolutionary Biologist

Hahahaha. That humor is exacerbated by this next erroneous statement:

Want proof? Look at our teeth. We have incisors used for tearing meat.

Do you know the animal with largest incisors? A Hippopotamus - classified as herbivore.

Few more herbivores incisors: Mountain Gorilla; Saber-Toothed Deer; The Gelada Baboon; Camels; certain pigs (e.g. the Javelina).

As a self-proclaimed evolutionary biologist you should know the reason certain herbivores, especially the hippo, evolved to have such sharp incisors despite having no meat on their list of favorite foods.

NO documented study has ever show a vegan diet to be more healthful than one that includes lean meat in moderation.

Must I really provide a potential litany of citations that state the contrary? Was this a serious non-exaggerated statement?

It really belies your ignorance in he subject of nutrition and human biology.

Yet, each of your claims were either unfounded, absurd, fallacious, or expressly erroneous...

Side: Yes, I agree.
arteaga34(130) Disputed
1 point

The fact is, that the vast majority of people in the world are not vegans and therefore, the vast majority of the athletes you meet, along with the vast majority of morbidly obese people (which make up the majority of America by the way) are going to be non-vegans; it doesn't have so much to do with them being omnivorous rather than them working hard in terms of physical training.

Despite the obvious anecdotal claims of vegans getting plenty of protein (patrik baboumian, one of the strongest men in the world), there is plenty of scientific evidence claiming how vegans easily achieve a sustainable amount of protein in their diets If you would maybe look at some evidence rather than jumping to conclusions, you would be surprised. https://www.vrg.org/nutrition/protein.php

Are you seriously an evolutionary biologist? I find that hard to believe as you're using one of the weakest arguments against veganism, our teeth. Look at gorillas who have much larger and stronger 'incisors' than humans, who are also herbivorous. but I guess to you that just means they are some biological anomaly?http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/apes/gorilla/

I wont bother posting any but there have been plenty of scientific studies showing the correlation between vegan diets and lower rates of cancer, heart disease, obesity, and diabetes that you can easily look up on pubmed or any where else really.

Side: Yes, I agree.
SlapShot(2607) Disputed
2 points

Yes I am really an Evolutionary Biologist. Well, I am currently working on my doctoral dissertation, that is, but right now only hold an MS in general Biology.

I used the dentition aspect of our physiological traits since it is a quickly identifiable one and is useful in a layman forum such as this, where time and space are constraints.

And also it seems you did not bother to read my linked article from live-science. Since it elaborated on how carnivorous habits greatly aided us homo sapiens.

http://www.livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html

But if you really want to delve deeper into some of the vestigial traits we have that allude to the fact that the genus homo was certainly evolved to be carnivorous, and that said carnivorous habits greatly aided our development, I can certainly elaborate.

Most anthropologists and Evo Biologists believe that the carnivorous diet, and specifically the protein we obtained from it, was a key factor in enabling our brains to evolve the way they did. That is, it helped us get smarter and fostered growth in the reasoning and strategy-making areas of the brain: our neo-cortical areas; pre-frontal lobes and cortex.

These are the areas of the brain we we were superior to our closest rivals, Neanderthal man, whom we narrowly edged out and surpassed when we met-up with them in Europe after leaving the African Savannah about 50,000 years ago.

And make no mistake, we had some good luck as well. Neanderthal was not the brutish ape-man many believe. Their brains overall were larger, But not in the important areas. Which were helped, for us, by good old meat.

What's for dinner?

LOL.

Check this out, a friend of mine I went to under-grad school with wrote it.........

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
1 point

Slapshot, I've already made clear why non-vegan foods should be banned worldwide. Animals, environment, health, and world hunger.

"News Flash: we don't give a rat's ass." SlapShot

Wow, you don't care. Did you know that animal abuse is a felony according to the FBI?

"FBI Makes Animal Cruelty A Top-Tier Felony To Help Track Abuse" [1]

"I could care less if somebody is a vegan. And the vast majority of superbly physical fit athletes I've known have been Omnivores. Like me." Slapshot

The vast majority of humans in the world are omnivores. This are plenty of healthy vegan athletes.

"Vegetarian diets are associated with several health benefits, but whether a vegetarian or vegan diet is beneficial for athletic performance has not yet been defined. Based on the evidence in the literature that diets high in unrefined plant foods are associated with beneficial effects on overall health, lifespan, immune function, and cardiovascular health, such diets likely would promote improved athletic performance as well." [2].

As you can see from above vegan athletes are at least as effective as non-vegan.

"Most vegans don't get enough protein. " SlapShot

Pure myth. You only need about 10% protein from calories. Plenty of vegan foods have more than enough protein like oats and legumes.

"You should get at least 10% of your daily calories, but not more than 35%, from protein, according to the Institute of Medicine." [3].

"So I know what I am talking about when I tell you that personally I always felt weaker when I stopped eating meat completely. Oh, my cardio abilities and endurance might have gone up a couple ticks but I noticed by pure weight-room strength always waned." SlapShot

There is testimonial evidence to the contrary. [4].

"Want proof? Look at our teeth. We have incisors used for tearing meat.

Pure herbivores don't have these." SlapShot

Wrong. Look at a hippopotamus' teeth. They are herbivores and have fangs.

"The hippopotamus (to avoid the contentious plural) also has the largest canines of any land animal, with two sword-like teeth that reach a whopping sixteen inches (40cm) in length. " [5].

"Type:

Mammal

Diet:

Herbivore" [6].

"NO documented study has ever show a vegan diet to be more healthful than one that includes lean meat in moderation." Slapshot

That's a falsehood. "Vegan Men: More Testosterone But Less Cancer" [7].

"It really belies your ignorance in he subject of nutrition and human biology." SlapShot

Ad hominem. "For Evolving Brains, a ‘Paleo’ Diet of Carbs" [8].

Thank you for posting SlapShot, I look forward to your response.

Links

1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/01/fbi-animal-cruelty-felony n5913364.html

2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20622542

3. http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/protein

4. http://www.30bananasaday.com/page/testify-1

5. http://listverse.com/2013/05/18/10-animals-with-terrifying-teeth/

6. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/hippopotamus/

7. http://nutritionfacts.org/2013/02/12/less-cancer-in-vegan-men-despite-more-testosterone/

8. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/science/for-evolving-brains-a-paleo-diet-full-of-carbs.html

Side: Yes, I agree.
2 points

The reason why I'm opposing this view it's because it violates our freedom as a human. Common sense, it's very important.....

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
1 point

Freedom is important. Yet, there is a reason why criminals are chased down by police officers. When your freedom infringes upon another person's freedom, then the law often steps in. How is it fair or just for a person to consume lots of meat damaging the environment, consuming more than his or her fair share, and causing suffering to animals?

Side: Yes, I agree.
arteaga34(130) Disputed
0 points

If only people like you could see how it explicitly violates the freedom of the countless animals being brutally tortured and killed every day. But just because they are animals and not humans, that gives us the right to be able to dispose of them in any manner we'd like, is what you believe in I'm sure.

Side: Yes, I agree.
stratos(85) Disputed
2 points

Arteaga, bacon is the best. And no we aren't torturing animals as you've suggested, and if you don't like to eat animals/meat then be my guest. It's still your choice on what to eat, i would say that it is rather impossible for "vegans" passing this law successfully, such nonsense. Their are "Humane" ways of preparing meat contrary to belief.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
outlaw60(14837) Disputed
1 point

Red meat is very good and especially cooked over a very hot flame. Ribeye is really the best cut of meat !

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
1 point

Yes, animal freedom is important too. There was a time when there was much greater gender inequality. I wonder if the same people who suggest human freedom is much more important than animal freedom think the same way about men and woman.

Side: Yes, I agree.
Kingly342(29) Disputed
1 point

I eat meat because I don't like the vegan diet. I don't like any diet. I prefer meat and meat alone is what I prefer. Dairy also has alot of calcium. Meat has iron and protein.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
2 points

Why might it be you Leftist want to ban all that you don't agree with ?

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
1 point

I'm don't see myself as a leftist. Last I checked the conservatives want to ban certain actions also.

Side: Yes, I agree.
outlaw60(14837) Disputed
2 points

Do tell where Conservatives want to ban worldwide dairy , eggs and meat ! I would like to see the information you have on that !

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
arteaga34(130) Disputed
0 points

Not all, just things that are completely cruel and unnecessary.

Side: Yes, I agree.
outlaw60(14837) Disputed
2 points

You oppose the consuming of red meat so it should be banned worldwide just because that's the way you view things ?

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
2 points

I am not disputing this for animal rights. This is not a dispute of our evolutionary needs. Then why am I disputing this? Because if we drop The Ban Hammer on non-vegan foods the whole world WILL go down the flusher.

Think of all the farmers around the world that rely on dairy and meat markets to put bread on the table. think of all the people who have no choice but to eat meat. If we ban non-vegan foods global starvation will ensue. This will evolve in riots and even wars.

Also, what government is powerful enough to induct this rule? Most governments today can't even sneeze without every other guy with a gun and a flag threatening war, let alone coming together and blanket ban one of the most plentiful (and profitable) food source.

And what of the people? how will the everyday person react to something so viciously taken from them, a right they have had since before the we (as a race) could even speak! Not to mention, what do we do with the people who break this rule?

throw them all in Gaol? they will overflow in a matter of weeks.

And last but not least, the animals. What will we do with the billions of livestock? We could not keep them on farms. It would be way to expensive to even consider doing this.

Pets as well. Where will we get the meat to feed them? And we certainly cannot release these animals to the wild. This will destroy the ecosystem. And all the animals that cannot

survive in the wild. Unadapted, docile animals that have no idea how to survive in the wilds, it will be a worse death than a trip to the abattoir.

In conclusion, this decision is expensive, cruel to both humans and animals and an all-around unstable and unpredictable future.

Thank you.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
1 point

Yes! Think of the children! Think of the us! The US! (The Farm children). YOU ARE 100% PERCENT RIGHT!!!

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
1 point

Being vegan only works because it is done by a small group of people. Since vegans can't get any pleasure from the food they eat they are forced to derive pleasure from telling everyone else that they are vegan. If everyone were vegan you couldn't get any pleasure from telling others you are vegan, and you are already getting no pleasure from your food. So, much of the population would go crazy from being so unhappy and many people would get hurt.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
0 points

Plenty of people get pleasure from vegan foods. There are many testimonies here [1]. The palate can change. "Our tastes can and do change over time for a variety of reasons. Do you now dislike something you used to love, or vice-versa? "[2].

Links.

1. http://www.30bananasaday.com/page/testify-1

2. http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/ wordofmouth/2012/jun/22/changing-tastes-the-wandering-palate

Side: Yes, I agree.
Cartman(18192) Disputed
2 points

No one wants to admit that the food that they eat gives them no pleasure. If you got pleasure from what you ate, why do you still feel the need to announce you are vegan to the world?

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
1 point

you would think that the argument would be to change how we get non-vegan foods to be better.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
3 points

killerfrog, I have no clue what your statement means. Can you please clarify?

Side: Yes, I agree.

I don't think this is necessary because you would cut off half of the work for farmers who help the animals and kill them for food. We need the non-vegan foods to have other extra food to a food supply otherwise we would spend the whole entire time eating foods that either are not sweet, no taste, not sour, or not salty. (depends on how you modified the food)

While the vegan foods may be healthy, we would only have those type of vegetables and that's all. Meat and vegetables comes in a different way of being modified as a mix with meats while vegetables will not mix with each other and often just be separated

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
1 point

The ranchers are supporting and killing mass numbers of sentient beings intentionally. This is unjust and immoral. What makes it okay for a farmer to kill a pig, but not a human child or mentally handicapped people? Where do you draw the line? How about minorities? Is it morally sound to kill minorities WeeklyManner?

Vegan food tastes fine.

Side: Yes, I agree.
GenericName(3429) Clarified
1 point

Out of curiosity, what evidence have you seen that cows, pigs, chickens, goats, or sheep are sentient?

Side: Yes, I agree.
1 point

Yet we need to resort to anything to eat for a food supply for the earth. If we use vegetables, we would have too much ground about the plants. This also goes for animals, if we let them repopulate themselves fast, they will go everywhere and take too much ground, too. And vegan food does taste fine for CERTAIN people. This goes for meat too. So if you want to remove some of the food supply for the earth, then might as well take up more ground. And if you mean minorities as young animals getting killed, it only happens if it's a needed situation on low food supply. So do you want ground often being used as food or perhaps be an omnivore like everyone else would be if they needed to be.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
1 point

Someone will just make a company called Vegan Foods but produce and sell the products that were originally banned because loopholes.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
1 point

That is a separate issue. Rich people find all sorts of loop holes in the tax codes. This doesn't make it right or just.

Side: Yes, I agree.
ProLogos(2798) Disputed
1 point

It's pertinent. What's the point of banning the foods if they'll just go back on the Market? Lots of time money and effort wasted if you ask me.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
1 point

My opposition to animal products are the methods used to obtain them. If worldwide bans were a thing, I would support one on factory farming, but not on animal products in general.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
vegan(77) Disputed
1 point

Is there a humane way to execute mass numbers of humans? Nope, so it stands to reason there isn't a humane way to slaughter mass number of cows, chickens, pigs, etc.

Side: Yes, I agree.
Stryker(849) Disputed
1 point

Is there a humane way to execute mass numbers of humans? Nope

I disagree. If you have an isolated group of people, all who only have ties within the group, and executed them in such a way to be both painless and with no knowledge of the demise of their group-mates, I see no objection on the grounds of immorality.

it stands to reason there isn't a humane way to slaughter mass number of cows, chickens, pigs, etc.

There are animal products that don't require the killing of an animal. For example, I could raise chicks with the care I would kittens, and once ready, I could collect and consume their savory menstruations without having caused anything to suffer.

I would like to note that I never used the words "humane" or "execute/slaughter", so your objection doesn't really seem aimed at me.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.
1 point

Your food is your choice and my choice is mine. As long as we agree to work together to stand up 4 what is right like hating homosexuality, we can all be friends.

Side: No, I reject the resolution.